Search? Click Here
Did you know you can visit to the swarm with
Post on the internet Working Thread

Bugser Debates the Director of the European Network Against Racism

Home Forums BUGS SWARM Bugser Debates the Director of the European Network Against Racism

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 25 total)
  • Author
  • #37133

    The Mantra in action

    Here is the MP3 as well

    Thanks to John Locke for making this possible.

    Patrick WhiteRabbit

    Good work but one big question–why no mention of genocide? I thought the Bugser (Adelheim?) was going to set him up and build up to the genocide sucker punch but it never happened?


    Genocide was mentioned a few times in the opening statement, where it matters most

    The Beef

    I’m only halfway through, and I notice the Anti-White was saying over and over again that the “Intermarriage is not being forced”.

    I’ll continue listening to it to see if I see this later on, but there is a very simple phrase to deal with this I would like to see next time, and ANYTIME an Anti-White claims Intermarriage is not forced:

    Nobody has to ENFORCE the Interrmarriage. They ENFORCE the conditions which lead to Interrmarriage.



    Good show Adelheim

    Basically Adelheim just repeated the basic points of the mantra and forced the anti-white into massive intellectual contradictions to defend his position.


    Towards the end of the debate around the 1 hour mark, the anti-white just repeated so what if whites become a minority.

    Patrick WhiteRabbit

    I respect everyone 110% for doing this. My comments aren’t meant to criticize but merely point out how we can improve next time.

    1.  Yes okay GENOCIDE was perhaps mentioned at the start but isn’t this the thing Bob wants us to hammer?! OVER AND OVER. Remember, we aren’t preaching to the choir here. Genocide needs to repeated to the masses through REPETITION. The Bugster missed so many open nets (soccer analogy) i was almost screaming by the end.

    2. The Bugster was too nice to the anti-White. As Lord Nelson says ‘ATTACK ATTACK’ We owe the anti-Whites nothing. Expose them as genocidal sociopaths and genocidal maniacs,

    3. I would presume the anti-White had about 30% more time to express their anti-White agenda! Why? We are the ones with the moral high ground. We should control the “discourse” (favorite anti-White buzzword)

    Yet again, thanks for doing all of this! Amazing work, i hope we can all improve!!


    The anti-white also says, around 01:07 ,  that it was both liberals and conservatives that opened Europe to non-white immigration, which fits in perfectly with the message of the mantra.


    “Liberals and respectable conservatives both agree”.


    The anti-white  made his closing statement on the defensive saying that he believes anti-racist is a not a code word for anti-white and acknowledged that forced integration is wrong.

    The Beef

    Adelheim did Very well IMHO, and valuably, he avoided tailgating and falling for tricks.

    He did definitely get to the point that forcing Whites to accept non-Whites in all our communities and then calling those who have a problem with Intermarriage Racists.

    When we critique this let’s keep in mind that all in all he did a VERY GOOD JOB, and toward the end the Anti-White was saying “who cares if Whites become a minority”?

    Anything we say here is simply a suggestion to add for next time he or any of us are in such a situation, to have a simple tool to add in next time.

    I cannot sum up in words here all he did correct. I have a feeling a huge sum of the Audience can see through the BS now, and view the Anti-White as just that.

    There are my suggestions for next time:

    Slightly more concise version of: “The Anti-Whites don’t need to Enfore Intermarriage, the Enforce the conditions that lead to Intermarriage“, and Hitting the word “Genocide” and working in the concepts of how International law defines Genocide more too.

    This is sort of like the players all sitting down and reviewing a post game video of the game, to see what can be done to improve.

    The overall feeling I got listening to it was the Anti-White being exlposed as an Anti-White.


    Good job.

    “You don’t THINK Whites will die out, or you don’t MIND for it to happen?”

    Might be a good way to corner them when they start denying white genocide and stating that they “dont think white people will die out” (before they start justifying it.)

    Either they will say “both” and their pants will be down since he basicly admitted that hes not against whites dying out, or they will say “think”, and then you can point out “but you DO mind that whites die out?”

    He will feel forced to say yes to not sound anti-white, if so you can just say: “Well then this debate it pointless because I mind White genocide too. Why do you even argue against someone that doesn’t agree that Whites should die out if you are against it too? That’s pretty stupid”

    Anyways good job, could probebly have not done it better myself.


    hm first you should do in a debate is to give an overview of the situation, make your case (with the same points as the main mantra). Just like Adelheim did. That way its easier to people to understand, you give your point across early on and you can refer to it at later point.

    During the debate you should expose your opponents intentions. Adelheim did this nicely as well by pointing out many times that everything he said always leads to a world without any white people. He could have added that the antiwhite was not denying white genocide, he was justifying it.

    you can also be passive offensive and point out the opponents contradictions. “Well you say that everyone is equal and that diversity is good, but why is it that Whites are not included in this ‘equality’ as you want to genocide them and how can you have ‘diversity’ in a melting pot? Sorry but it doesn’t make any sense. It sounds ridiculous actually LOL”

    Just make fun of them, dont take them dead serious. Also be on the offensive. They are the ones doing the explaining as well. Don’t let them lead the conversation or make you “define” things for them. Claim the moral highground.

    When the anti-white asked Adelheim (cant remember what exactly) he said something about “i believe everyone have the right to exist including white people” he could have been more passive offensive by saying something like: “I just don’t agree that Whites should die out”. etc

    Might be good to make a conclusion at the end if possible. Make a point about “it’s funny how everything they say always lead to a world without any white people. They say they are anti-racists but I guess what they really are is anti-white. Thanks for the debate though. Cheers.” or something.

    Like i said i would most likely not have done it better than Adelheim since its much harder live. But i take this opportunity to learn from it.

    Ice Knight

    Well done Adelheim you certainly pushed the anti-White onto the defensive and had them tied in intellectual knots.  They were making some quite obvious contradictions and must realise how weak their position has become.

    I would however agree with Patrickwhiterabbit, you were just to damn nice and polite to the anti-White.  I’ve worked with a lot of Scandinavians and I know direct confrontation is not really part of your culture – however push them far enough and a wonderful Viking rage still lurks beneath the surface!  This is what we should be using.

    The Mantra is best delivered by being just plain nasty to anti-Whites.  We shouldn’t entertain their arguments.  We have the moral high ground and those that try and justify our geNOcide should fear us.

    Woad Warrior

    Good job Adelheim! You’re my hero of the day!


    Thanks for the feedback!

    And thanks to John Lock and other bugsers who backed me and made this possible.

    I do agree that there is a lot of things that I could improve on.

    I have done a lot of commenting and so forth in writing, but this is my first live debate ever when it comes to speaking.

    I hope this can be the beginning of us finding anti-whites and debate them like this. Talk to them on skype for example, record and put it up (like we just did). Of course Privot agreed with putting it up unedited.

    It does not need to be the director of anything, it can just be an average anti-white without titles.

    Palltalk is another way of talking to people. Palltalk is a chatroom. We can have our own room there where we can talk to each other. Ask and answer questions if some bugsers would like to do that.

    Anyone interested to continue this?



    I wanted to add a couple of thoughts too.

    First, I think you did a GREAT job.  You forced your opponent to admit that he supports policies that will lead to a future with no white children.  That is all we have to do to wake the sleeping Titan.

    One of my favorite things that you did was that you said something like “How do you think that makes White people feel?”

    Whites must call out these anti-white hypocrites who pretend to care so much for peoples “feelings” and “dignity” on their callous disregard for the feelings of our white children.  It can be painful to show vulnerability but you did it masterfully!  Thank you so much.

    One minor thing that I would have done differently is this.  At one point, he asked you what would be so wrong if Whites become a minority.  If I remember correctly, you responded with the most important point, which is that if you force assimilate a minority, you are exterminating them and that’s genocide.

    But you might have added that he himself has already said that it is highly disadvantageous to be a minority.  He has dedicated his life to fighting “racism”, which he claims is a scourge that afflicts minorities and only minorities.  Moreover, he wishes to impose the burdens of being a minority on White children in ALL white countries.  Therefore, he clearly does not care for their well-being.

    Anyway, this is really a minor point because the most important thing is that you brought it back to White genocide.

    I also take a different point of view on your tone.  Most posters seem to think you should have been more aggressive and maybe that’s true, but I’m not so sure.  Privot was being conciliatory and you might have come across as the bad guy if you had taken a more hostile tone.

    Thanks again so much for doing this!

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.


    Adelheim did amazing in this debate.

    I like the idea of possibly scheduling a Paltalk chat for bugsers who wanna show up & text chat or voice chat; and go over scenarios & questions when encountering anti-whites.

    Anti-whites who frequent this board will also be invited to come!

    miss albion

    Great job Adelheim!


    I am interested in palltalk. Has it been set up or Bugsters?


    Love ya work Adelheim

    J Locke

    Any other debates in the works? A Bugster chat room would be great to listen to when training for a debate.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 25 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.